arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv周末暂无论文更新,休息一下吧,周末愉快~~
arXiv 2605.00136cs.AI
收藏

工具是否足够?揭示LLM代理中的工具使用税

Are Tools All We Need? Unveiling the Tool-Use Tax in LLM Agents

University of Houston(休斯顿大学);University of Southern California(南加州大学);New York University(纽约大学);Texas A&M University(德克萨斯农工大学);University of California, San Diego(加州大学圣地亚哥分校)

Kaituo Zhang, Zhen Xiong, Mingyu Zhong, Zhimeng Jiang, Zhouyuan Yuan, Zhecheng Li, Ying Lin

AI总结:

本文研究了工具增强推理在LLM代理中的有效性,发现语义干扰下工具性能可能下降,提出Factorized Intervention Framework分析工具使用成本,并引入G-STEP缓解协议误差。

摘要:

工具增强推理已成为LLM代理的热门方向,普遍认为能提升推理和可靠性。然而,我们证明这种共识并不总成立:在存在语义干扰时,工具增强推理不一定优于原生CoT。为解释这一性能差距,我们提出了Factorized Intervention Framework,隔离提示格式成本、工具调用协议开销和执行工具的实际收益。分析揭示了关键权衡:在语义噪声下,工具收益常无法抵消由工具调用协议自身引入的性能下降,即“工具使用税”。为此,我们引入G-STEP,一种轻量级推理时门控,以缓解协议引起的误差。尽管这带来部分恢复,但我们的发现表明,更显著的改进仍需加强模型的内在推理和工具交互能力。

英文摘要:

Tool-augmented reasoning has become a popular direction for LLM-based agents, and it is widely assumed to improve reasoning and reliability. However, we demonstrate that this consensus does not always hold: in the presence of semantic distractors, tool-augmented reasoning does not necessarily outperform native CoT. To explain this performance gap, we propose a Factorized Intervention Framework that isolates the cost of prompt formatting, the overhead of the tool-calling protocol, and the actual gain from executing tools. Our analysis reveals a critical tradeoff: under semantic noise, the gains from tools often fail to offset the "tool-use tax", which is the performance degradation introduced by the tool-calling protocol itself. To address this, we introduce G-STEP, a lightweight inference-time gate to mitigate protocol-induced errors. While this yields partial recovery, our findings suggest that more substantial improvements still require strengthening the model's intrinsic reasoning and tool-interaction capabilities.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑